AG Schnozz wrote:
>The two cameras I looked at in depth were the 10D and DRebel. I
>briefly looked at the 20D, but it was walking out the door so no
>quality time was possible. It was noticably lighter than the
>10D but I didn't like the grip. As bad as the 10D was, the 20D
>was worse! Why? The grip isn't tall enough. I felt like I was
>holding onto the camera with three fingers instead of my whole
>hand--it wasn't using the shape of the palm to stabilize the
>grip.
>
Very much a personal thing. I like the grip on the 300D, and I spent
quite a lot of time carrying it around over the last 3 weeks. My index
finger rests over the shutter release and the other 3 fingers fit nicely
on the grip below.
>Anyway, other than grip and a quick once over, I didn't see
>anything there that screamed "buy me". Too bad--it's got a
>sweet sensor.
>
1. The big buy me item on my list for the 20D is the power-on time. I
like the 300D a lot, but it certainly isn't perfect. My only serioius
complaint is with the power-on time of 2 1/2 sec. I'm starting to train
myself to click the shutter release whenever the possibility of a shot
is there, but still too often put it up to my eye and push the release,
only to have to wait. The 20D start-up is 0.2 seconds - BIG difference.
2. 8.2 mp with lower noise and better sharpness than the 6mp 10D. In
effect, they have lowered noise at higher isos by one f-stop. Pretty
significant to me. I suspect iso 1600 on the 20D has no more noise than
iso 200 on the A1.
3. As you mention below, focusing on the 300D and 10D is "downright
snappy". It's even faster on the 20D, according to dpreview, "It's quite
noticeably faster than than the EOS 10D and has better low light working
range (-0.5 EV compared to 0.5 EV). "
As you say below, Canon always wins on feature/specs, which is true;
they are great marketers. I think they are also listening to what users
really want. These 3 improvements are things that make a big, direct
improvement in usability and quality of results. They scream something
very much like "buy me" to me.
>The 10D and the DRebel then captured my attention. The DRebel's
>viewfinder is a pathetic excuse for an optical anything. Does
>anybody realize what utter trash the manufacturers are heaving
>upon us these days? Twenty years ago, any camera with a
>viewfinder that bad would have been panned by every magazine,
>dealer and customer.
>
Those were MF cameras with 24x36mm sensors. It is not possible within
the current laws of optical physics to duplicate the size and brightness
of a full frame 35mm viewfinder with the APSish sensor size. Also, of
course, the vast, vast majority of shots with these cameras will use AF.
You want a good viewfinder, the EOS-1Ds Mark II has it.... at a price.
><viewfinder rant.
>Did I mention that the viewfinder was bad?
>
><more viewfinder rant>
>
I can, at least with 35mm or longer lens and good light, but I agree
they are not very good for many MF uses.
><yet more viewfinder rant>
>
>Ok, to the controls. The DRebel didn't do anything for me at
>all, and it sounds/feels rough when firing the shutter, so I
>moved my attention to the 10D.
>
But the shutter works fine. And I'll have a new body before it wears
out. Any current DSLR below $2000 today is just a bridge camera. A 300D
with the bootleg firmware does almost everything a 10D does for a lot
less money. For a bridge camera, taht makes sense to me.
>And you know what, as raunchy as the EVF is, I'm convinced that
>it's not as bad as the optical viewfinder in either the Drebel
>or 10D.
>
I think EVFs are the future. Another couple of rounds of development and
mirrors and pentaprisms will be virtually obsolete. But not yet for me,
current EVFs just have to be bad for your brain with all that jerkiness.
>At least I can continue to wear my glasses with the
>A1--couldn't with the Canons.
>
Mine work well with the 300D, -5.5 diopter and a little astigmatism.
>Well, my mood was getting pretty foul. I REALLY DID want to
>like the Canons. Alas, it wasn't to be. My wrist went numb.
>
>Looking around store, I saw a lowly OM-2N (chrome, very nice
>condition, $180 including 50/1.8) sitting on the shelf. I asked
>to look at it, tried it out a little and stared longingly
>through the viewfinder.
>
Yeah, I do that too. Of course, the OM-4 finder is smaller than a 2N,
but the difference was quite apparent when using both on my trip.
> I handed it to the salesperson and
>asked her if she ever looked through the viewfinder. "No" was
>her response and she did try it out. "Now, look through this"
>and I had her look through the 10D.
>
>The look on her face was priceless. She immediately started
>checking out all the controls, rotating the shutter speed ring
>and winding and clicking the shutter.
>
>"The viewfinder is so BIG!" she exclaimed. "And the camera is
>so light and tiny."
>
>Uh huh.
>
>As good as the OM-2N is, and as perfect as it was in its day,
>the OM-2n is barely viable anymore. But it is an example of a
>camera designed at the pinnicle of SLR development. There will
>never be another camera like it again.
>
>It's a shame that today's camera designers have lost that
>connection with those things that truely made a camera great.
>
Ever use a 50s Praktica with waist level finder? What an impossible
camera! I can't see a damn thing! Focusing is a joke! A TLR is much more
usable. The OMs were revolutionary in some ways. They also built on the
shoulders of a lot of predecessors who worked out the technology to make
it usable. Current DSLRs are like that old Praktica. The great ones are
still to come.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|